So you said the Polish prisoners were not entirely innocent. So what were they guilty of, of BREATHING AIR? The excuse that they we killed because of the war in 1920 is nonsense. Such insinuations are utterly disgusting!! The excuse you use that the Soviets wanted to get rid of future Nazi collaborators is likewise disgusting. How can anybody possibly charge anyone with FUTURE acts. This only proves that possible crimes committed by the Poles had nothing to do with the murders. Stalin just wanted a weaker Polish army and therefore exterminated this group as another 'enemy of the Soviet state'. Thus business as usual in 'dear old Soviet state'.

You say: The country experienced unprecedented economic, social, and cultural progress. The soviet system functioned for the interests of the people, not for the owners of capital and international monopolies. People sought and lived meaningful, productive lives in the interest of strengthening the country's development and their own standard of living. There was genuine democracy in the soviet era, as one cannot get fired from a job under socialism for criticizing management. You wouldn't see homeless people on the streets of Moscow as you do today or sleazy, filthy products of the West such as discotheques, night clubs, and McDonalds

So you say that the reason that the Soviets denied their citizens the right to travel abroad, had nothing to do with their fear of them fleeing from the country and asking asylum in western countries? Is that why they had to build a wall around Berlin, to prevent their people from fleeing to the West? I think this alone proves the ridicule of your remarks.

You know, I'm beginning to find Zvezda a bore. At first, given the overall bizarre quality of his/her views, I thought s/he was some kind of weird plant from the Russian secret service, but her views don't even coincide with those of Putin's government (which has taken a definite stance against Lenin), so now I'm starting to think that s/he is merely one of our old friends Rsskiya or Dashkova in disguise. What could be more (in)appropriate at this juncture than a visit from old friends?

For all you newcomers out there who are not acquainted with Rsskiya and Dashkova, they were I believe the same person, or at the very least worked in concert to argue against every anti-Soviet, anti-Communist position taken in this forum. It was a charade, basically. They acted as agents provocateurs: their mission was purely to cause disruption on the boards, and they did so quite happily for a number of years. I think Zvezda, if not these same people in disguise, is one of these mischief makers. She can't really believe what she is saying. After all, no one says it anymore, not even Putin's authoritarian government. The only people in Russia spouting these views nowadays are crazy neo-fascist Eurasianists like Aleksandr Dugin, or Red-Brown fascist-communists like Eduard Limonov. Dugin is a fanatic whereas Limonov is basically a prostitute for publicity, any kind will do. At any rate, these two are marginal political figures, the only question is, and it is a serious one, will they remain marginal?

I don't expect us to discuss this matter here, since it is out of the purview of this particular thread. But I do think it's relevant to Zvezda's increasingly nationalistic, even chauvinistic posts. Anyone who argues that the massacre at Katyn by the Soviets was in some way justified is morally blinkered, - no worse, blinded by their bizarre ideology, which posits that even "suspected" or "potential" foes of the Stalinist regime were somehow worthy of death, purely on the basis of their nationality, ethnicity, and/or social class. How is this different from the Nazis?

So you say that the reason that the Soviets denied their citizens the right to travel abroad. Is that why they had to build a wall around Berlin

That is false. For example, my mother visited Lebanon in 1972.

Quote

Anyone who argues that the massacre at Katyn by the Soviets was in some way justified

To call it a "massacre" is inaccurate, for it was carried out in accordance with the country's laws. The prisoners committed hostile acts in violation of the country's security and were therefore punished. It was excessive to have executed them, but the principle of punishing them was just. Instead of being executed, they should have been sent to work in mines. And it is undeniable that the execution of Polish officers was intimately related to the Polish aggression of 1920 and the subsequent occupation of Soviet lands.

Quote

neo-fascist or Red-Brown fascist-communists like Eduard Limonov

The term "fascist-communist" makes no sense. The ones closer to fascism on the political spectrum are actually the various factions of the liberal capitalists.

Quote

If your father drove a car in 1970, your family must be rich.

My grandfather was a cobbler and was relatively wealthy compared to workers. But owning a car was not rare. In the 1980s, there were 70 cars per 1000 people, meaning that about one-third of all families owned a car.

You say: that is false. For example, my mother visited Lebanon in 1972.

Perhaps your mother wouldn't be missed if she wouldn't return.

You say: To call it a "massacre" is inaccurate, for it was carried out in accordance with the country's laws. The prisoners committed hostile acts in violation of the country's security and were therefore punished. It was excessive to have executed them, but the principle of punishing them was just. Instead of being executed, they should have been sent to work in mines. And it is undeniable that the execution of Polish officers was intimately related to the Polish aggression of 1920 and the subsequent occupation of Soviet lands.

I have done none of that. I simply express the views that the Russian Revolution was a watershed for world history and brought unprecedented gains for the people of Russia who were suffering in the Dark Ages that was tsarism. The Soviet era was not some miserable period as western liberals would have us believe, but was a time in which people led meaningful and decent lives. Particularly in the post-war period, soviet power was the greatest thing Russia experienced. I don't appreciate it too much when outsiders denigrate my country's history, especially when they liken it to Nazi Germany.

Quote

Eduard Limonov. Dugin

I don't sympathize with either Limonov or Dugin, as I find their fascist ideology to be repugnant.

« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 11:57:01 PM by Zvezda »

Logged

RomanovsFan4Ever

I have done none of that. I simply express the views that the Russian Revolution was a watershed for world history and brought unprecedented gains for the people of Russia who were suffering in the Dark Ages that was tsarism.

Dark Ages that was Tsarism?...I have already said that the Tsarism wasn't totally right, but actually I think that the bolshevik and communist era was more dark than the Tsarist era.

I have done none of that. I simply express the views that the Russian Revolution was a watershed for world history and brought unprecedented gains for the people of Russia who were suffering in the Dark Ages that was tsarism. The Soviet era was not some miserable period as western liberals would have us believe, but was a time in which people led meaningful and decent lives. Particularly in the post-war period, soviet power was the greatest thing Russia experienced. I don't appreciate it too much when outsiders denigrate my country's history, especially when they liken it to Nazi Germany.

Quote

Eduard Limonov. Dugin

I don't sympathize with either Limonov or Dugin, as I find their fascist ideology to be repugnant.

Our members are welcome to express their opinions, even if they are a "denigration of your country's history". So are you. That's the difference between "soviet power" and democracy.

I am reminded of something that happened years while I was attending the University of Arizona. I accompanied my professor to the airport to meet a visiting delegation of Soviet scholars.

While they were pleasant enough, they took the time to point out that "the streets were cleaner in the Soviet Union" and various unfavorable comparisons of Tucson, which is a lovely city (IMHO) but nonetheless, not up to USSR standards.

I reminded Professor Oswald that his wife had asked us to phone to give her a 10 minute warning of our arrival. He pulled up to make the call at a shopping center which included a grocery store with standard American fare (bakery, custom cuts of meat, etc) and taking a short list his wife dictated, asked the delegation if they would like to see the store.

Their faces registered the surprise they felt as they entered, and one of the women asked me if I, as a student, could afford to shop there. I told them I was on a budget, but, yes, I bought food there regularly.

Their overall reaction - tears. Every single person cried. They had no idea we lived this way.

So, I think about this every time I hear how great the USSR was after the war. I just don't buy it.

Russia established an eight-hour working day just a few days after the Petrograd Uprising, actually. By contrast, life for workers and peasants during the tsarist days was brutal and back-breaking; factory workers did 12+ hour shifts. There is no guarantee for such conditions in the United States, where many people have several jobs and work 70+ hours per week.

Quote

In the Stalin era

I don't know why you keep talking about the Stalin era, which is basically ancient history by now; my grandmother was a 10 year-old girl when the war started, for example. Concerning life in the 1970s, which is more relevant, it was quite laid-back, especially at the workplace.

Logged

RomanovsFan4Ever

I don't know why you keep talking about the Stalin era, which is basically ancient history by now; my grandmother was a 10 year-old girl when the war started, for example. Concerning life in the 1970s, which is more relevant, it was quite laid-back, especially at the workplace.

Well, I'm still talking about the Stalin era just because the web site that I was referring is dedicated to the GULAG during that time, and also is the time of the Soviet Union that has particularly attracted my interest, I would agree that it is ancient history.And I have to say that since this topic is dedicated to Communist crimes, I think that it's better to talk about the entire history of the Soviet era, not only about 1970s, this is my opinion.

I have refrained from posting on this thread, as anyone who knows me, knows my views on the subject. Having said that, Lisa, do you know what "Soviet" means? It i is a a collective DEMOCRACY. Of course there were abuses, there are in any power system. The USA is no exception. Your tender memories notwithstanding, I also have a have few- namely of a very good friend at the USSR Embassy in Wash. D.C. years ago. Of course he was semi-impressed with our markets but always wondered why we needed so many choices of tooth paste? Many people in the USSR received a good education, opprotunity and health care. There were many achievments in science, the arts and culture. There was a direction in that society. It is misguided to concentrate on Stalin, IMO. He was good and bad, just like Churchill and Roosevelt, , Mussolini and Peron. [etc] Name any leader and there are points we can look at and accuse. As for the system itself, it benefited the workers, which was the original point. It saved the country from a horrible invasion at huge cost. I know you and many others dwell on the negative yet ignore the positive aspects of Soviet life. It was indeed a radical change from the old system. But, was that so bad, for the Russians themselves?

« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 04:07:03 PM by Robert_Hall »

Logged

Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

I have refrained from posting on this thread, as anyone who knows me, knows my views on the subject. Having said that, Lisa, do you know what "Soviet" means? It i is a a collective DEMOCRACY. Of course there were abuses, there are in any power system. The USA is no exception. Your tender memories notwithstanding, I also have a have few- namely of a very good friend at the USSR Embassy in Wash. D.C. years ago. Of course he was semi-impressed with our markets but always wondered why we needed so many choices of tooth paste? Many people in the USSR received a good education, opprotunity and health care. There were many achievments in science, the arts and culture. There was a direction in that society. It is misguided to concentrate on Stalin, IMO. He was good and bad, just like Churchill and Roosevelt, , Mussolini and Peron. [etc] Name any leader and there are points we can look at and accuse. As for the system itself, it benefited the workers, which was the original point. It saved the country from a horrible invasion at huge cost. I know you and many others dwell on the negative yet ignore the positive aspects of Soviet life. It was indeed a radical change from the old system. But, was that so bad, for the Russians themselves?

Since you ask, I minored in Russian History at the University of Arizona, completing nearly enough credit hours to qualify as a double major. I took every class offered at the time and earned an A in each one.

Yes, I know what the word Soviet means. I consider Stalin to be a mass murderer. And, I am offended that you would compare him to Churchill or Roosevelt. Stalin was scum.

I have never ignored the benefits of the Soviet system - there were some benefits for some people as with the tsarist system.

Was it so bad for the Russians? A system that murders its own citizens is in my opinion bad, but maybe that's just me. I'm picky that way.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You may disagree with me at your leisure. At least if I disagree with you, I won't be sent to the Gulag or shot.

Lisa, please do not misunderstand me- I agree Stalin was a monster. My point is that drastic measures are taken by almost all leaders [the Dalai Lama may be an exception, but his predessors were not exactly angels] What I am trying to say is that there are many views about all of these folks. Some do indeed hate Roosevelt, blaming him for all out troubles, verging on socialism,. Frankly, I think of him as a hero. Some see Stalin the same way. And Churchill, well, he was an arrogant SOB but got Britain through the war. As did Stalin for the USSR. I am just trying to say it is best to look at these subjects objectively. And, BTW, I too studied Russian [more properly Soviet] history. I found a great deal of it boring and propagandist, but stuck with it just the same. Yes, we can amicably agree to disagree. Cheers, Robert

Logged

Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Lisa, please do not misunderstand me- I agree Stalin was a monster. My point is that drastic measures are taken by almost all leaders [the Dalai Lama may be an exception, but his predessors were not exactly angels] What I am trying to say is that there are many views about all of these folks. Some do indeed hate Roosevelt, blaming him for all out troubles, verging on socialism,. Frankly, I think of him as a hero. Some see Stalin the same way. And Churchill, well, he was an arrogant SOB but got Britain through the war. As did Stalin for the USSR. I am just trying to say it is best to look at these subjects objectively. And, BTW, I too studied Russian [more properly Soviet] history. I found a great deal of it boring and propagandist, but stuck with it just the same. Yes, we can amicably agree to disagree. Cheers, Robert

Forgive me, but I'll say it again, for the nth time, if Hitler had died in 1938, there would be plenty of people out there singing his praises. After all, he put Germans back to work; he revived the German economy in a very major way. He was anti-smoking, anti-alcohol, and a vegetarian to boot, and he managed to pass the most advanced legislation on animal rights of its time (indeed, this legislation was far ahead of its time). A friend to the German worker, a friend to German cats and dogs... what more could one want? If it weren't for all that pesky anti-Jewish legislation, and his hatred of Germans with disabilities, one could almost argue that he was a good ruler, no worse than Stalin or Churchill or Roosevelt, objectively speaking... Yes, one could almost argue that. But not quite. There's something rotten to the core about these regimes (and I'll include Lenin's and Brezhnev's and Andropov's alongside with Hitler's and Stalin's) that stinks to high heaven. Those who suffered under these regimes tended to be the very best and the very brightest - the flower of their respective nations - so no wonder that Germany today has no arts or sciences scene worthy of its pre-1933 incarnation, and the post-Soviet Russian Federation continues to produce nothing noteworthy (or for that matter valuable) but natural gas and oil.

and the post-Soviet Russian Federation continues to produce nothing noteworthy (or for that matter valuable) but natural gas and oil.

Why do you keep on making these kind of sweeping generalizations about subjects you know little about? Soviet-era Russia produced products of excellent quality such as airplanes, ships, tractors, and motor vehicles. My experience with Soviet-era consumer goods such as a sewing machine have been generally positive. My mother's sewing machine is as old as I am and still works fine.

Quote

After all, he put Germans back to work

Any positive aspect of the German economy in the 1930s came largely at the expense of the liquidation of the hard-won gains of the working people. Real wages in the 1930s, for example, declined considerably.